IGN modified its Assassin's Creed review, Destructoid got the proof

On Destructoid you can find the proof that IGN indeed modified its Assassin's Creed review.

The current review contains this: "These big open worlds, which are fully interactive, do come at a cost. There is considerable texture pop-in and occasional framerate hiccups. None of this deters from the gameplay though, so it is forgivable."

The original review contained this: "These big open worlds, which are fully interactive, do come at a severe cost on PS3. There is considerable texture pop-in and noticeable framerate issues. Playing back-to-back with the 360 version, it's obvious that Ubisoft did not devote enough resources to the PS3 edition. The framerate is considerably worse, so much so that it begins to affect gameplay in the later levels. You can get through the first two-thirds of Assassin with the framerate being just an annoyance, but it becomes more of an issue for the final third of the missions."

Update:

IGN has changed back the review and given an explanation to Desctructoid. See the third entry at the alternative sources below.

IGN editing something like that shows nothing but afraid to lose fans. if is true then they should have kept it original and if is not then that would be the only excuse to have edited the post. anyhow ill find out this friday when I get my hand on the PS3 version

^^^ Incorrect sir. IGN blows. Surprisingly, the U.S. reviewers always complain about stupid stuff or even gripe about stuff that doesn't exist (like no camera control in Overlord when there IS camera control in Overlord). I trust IGN AU a lot more, and I would never read IGN's reviews if it wasn't for them.

Plus, 20 bucks for "Insider" so you can see comparison videos and exclusive articles? Please, get over yourselves. Anyone with an "Insider" membership is a sucker.

Edit @above: Opinions can easily be wrong. Here's an example: your post. Seriously, though, my opinion could be that something that is actually red looks more orange to me. So even though, to me, the color is clearly orange, I am wrong. And it is a fact that IGN sucks, so your opinion doesn't matter. I know that my logic in this argument probably doesn't make any sense to you, but that is also just your opinion, and you are again wrong. I hope this clears things up for you. Have a nice day.

i like ur logic!! u have one!! though i rarely see in these sites!! some people think their opinion is absolute!! like 360 is better or ps3 is better or arabs r evil (like how they show it in COD4) or american army and government are innocent angels!!!

wtf are ya talking about. IGN didn't modify their review. It still says

These big open worlds, which are fully interactive, do come at a severe cost on PS3. There is considerable texture pop-in and noticeable framerate issues. Playing back-to-back with the 360 version, it's obvious that Ubisoft did not devote enough resources to the PS3 edition. The framerate is considerably worse, so much so that it begins to affect gameplay in the later levels. You can get through the first two-thirds of Assassin with the framerate being

@1.5: You state that it's a fact that IGN sucks, yet you give no real reason why other than the Insider bit, which nobody is forcing you to pay for to begin with. Sorry, but your fact is an opinion, which isn't right nor wrong. I don't know about elsewhere, but I'm glad US game reviewers don't eat everything they're spoon fed. I, for one, take my gaming seriously and expect bang for my buck. I think knit-picking is a good thing. The small things DO matter.

@1.6: Who ever claimed that the US military and government were perfect little angels? Sounds to me like your own perception based on something false. If you were American and had any knowledge about our society first hand, you'd most likely be against the war, disapprove of Bush and how he's making us look, and KNOW our government is evil.

This is a perfect example of what happens when you get SO BIG that it is not about being honest anymore, it is about keeping friends in the industry. As soon as you let that happen, your cred. goes right out the door.

From the GameSpot review: "There are few differences between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions. PS3 owners are blessed with a slightly more solid frame rate, although the 360 version features a little more contrast in the lighting, so it's pretty much a wash. But regardless of which platform you go with, you'll have an amazing and unforgettable game. Assassin's Creed is the kind of game you tell your friends about, and one that should be in your collection. "

UBisoft are no doubt putting there heels in and trying to get a "But Its the same on both consoles" attitude started again which is Toss (Unless the QC at Ubisoft are to busy masterbating as Jade shloops around). Its being slammed by nearly all websites, notably more on the Playstation 3 for having issues...... ......People need to deal with it. One glimmer of hope from GameSpot against`t pretty much 90% of all other reviews are saying its poop.

---EDIT--- A while ago someone was quoted saying there would be a 5% or less Difference between the platforms.. I`m guessing the difference is what is being talked about. And for Beavis benefit, so he doesn`t accuse me of plucking stuff out of the air, here`s a link for those that don`t remember. http://www.thebbps.com/blog...

Yeah its true enough some haven`t mentioned the frame rate, but i have read 3 reviews now that say the ps3 has worse Fps and only gamespot that says differently, thats not a good percentage in favour of the PS3.

Unless the review code is somewhat different to the retail, although really it shouldn`t be, only difference is perhaps the type of media they used for the copys they sent out, my opinion remains the same.

CVG's comparison points to the PS3 having about 2-3 fps less than the 360 version, but says the PS3 version is noticably sharper (more so than the slightly lower fps)...so there is absolutely no way to know without comparing yourself...every single "credible" site/mag is saying something different...

I wonder if any of this has to do with all those display settings in the xmb...some source said that can cause slightly dips in framerates...that could be why 6 different reviewers are all saying different things when it comes to framerates...but game reviewers in general are not intelligent people, I think that is more the issue...

Sorry Mate, didn`t read your edit. I will Find out what sites they are, just dealing with my son, some little bastard sprayed him in the face with a deodorant. If you can wait for later i`ll mail you them, otherwise hunt around they weren`t small obscure sites.

beavis4play you have an attitude that will get you no where, besides the conversation was between me and Bordello. At least he has manners.

----EDIT----Have mailed you the sites, i think most of them are now on N4G anyway.

Given what other reviewers are syaing, it looks like the original review was being really harsh on the PS3 version. I guess IGN would say that they have changed the review to reflect the 'reality' of the situation and be more accurate. I suspect thats the case, as if there trully were major issues with the PS3 version, they wouldn't have an issue reporting it, as they have done so for many sub-standard conversions in the past...

Ubisoft is trying to hide the fact that the 360 is superior because its the more powerful conole so it does not impact on sales of its PS3 version, which we all know is going to sell terribly compared to the 360

I'll judge for my self when I get home how good the frame rate is on this game, but frame rate is a basic thing and if it is as bad as they say, it should not have been released till it was fixed. Anyway, we're all going on the word that someone talking about what someone else said and later changed. Its anyone’s guess why they changed it, but if it was from outside pressure then IGN are not doing what their suppost to as journalists.

As far as your fanboyism is concerned, if you are going to bash the PS3 and say that it's because of the console that it has bad framerate, then let's look at another little masterpiece on the 360. Anyone recall Two Worlds? That game should NOT have been released until the bugs in it were fixed. Such horrible framerate. What a horrible little piece of work that was.

This comment made my head hurt. It very well may be the most blatantly baseless fanboy comment I have ever read.

Look I have a comment to make too: <sarcasm> "Both Sony and Microsoft are just afraid of the raw power of the Wii! It will have better graphics and sales when the Wii version of Assassin's Creed hits!! omgz0rtastix!" </sarcasm>

They seriously need to change the ratings scale... they are losing all credibilty and alot of this REALLY does have to do with bias. Even if they've gooten over it now... everyone is watching their every move because ALOT of people feel "professionals" started taking sides making the war unfair. I think its funny.

I hope your 360 gets the rings unless it already has then I hope your replacement 360 gets the rings unless that already has too. Thanks for providing a link from an xbox review. This game for the 360 has to be better than Halo 3 and Bioshock combined.

"Don't take this to mean that I didn't enjoy the game; it's something that I highly recommend, but it's just not as polished as it should have been. While it looks utterly amazing, the frame rate drops to sluggish levels in both versions of the game - usually while free-running on roof tops - and the PS3 game suffers from a slightly less than great frame rate during most of the game. There's also noticeable tearing in both versions of the game. It's not enough to put you off the game, but a shame nonetheless".

All they did at IGN was to supress the redundancy of the paragraph they'd written. I mean, the text is much better that way. People became so gullible they're depending on what the websites write as some sort of sacred truth. Even if they're the same, you'll be seeing frame rate issues where they don't exist just because someone suggested them. It's a brainwash if you ask me.

Are we talking about motors and reprises? Why don't you just plug the consoles to a computer and run a program to tell you which version is taking the most advantage of its system, get the results and publish them as a review? You might as well...!

These people have no respect for that which lays the food on their tables..

Yep, it did say that yesterday. If I hadn't read this story, I wouldn't have known that they changed it. That was a serious accusation and now they changed it. In my eyes that whole review is invalid now, IGN needs to give it to someone else to re-review.

Third party devs have given up on Sony this year and the evidence is crystal clear. Multi platform games will never satisfy both consoles.

Criterion games, I have faith in you guys, please don't let me down by dumbing down your game to fit the 360 specs like most third party developers have already. Don't believe me. Why are most next gen games so short these days? Why must they only focus all their attention on multi player campaign? I see a blog in the works.

Why is Mass Effect such a graphic powerhouse and a very, very long quest but only filling up 6.74 GB?

Because all cutscenes are 100% inengine, not video CGI like many PS stuff.

Why most games are pretty short? Because a studio is forced to put the game out after 2 years of development time. There isn't much time left to make a 20 hour game instead of a max. 10 hour one. That's a shame on the one hand, on the other, mostly there are good multiplayer parts then (read: Halo 3, COD4 etc.), or if there isn't the single player is just great and of good length (read: Bioshock, Mass Effect)

Mass Effect will be a great game but remember that it's an rpg. Those environments will be recycled over and over again for every new character that you create. Those with no HDD will need to buy one to truly enjoy the game.

You couldn't be more wrong. Have you even watched Mass Effect? So many surroundings, lots of different planets, ships, all different. And still even 2 GB left on one DL-DVD

"for every new character that you create. Those with no HDD will need to buy one to truly enjoy the game."

Wrong again. Most persons that bought a Core don't play these games. Kids that play Viva Piniata. The new Arcade has a memory unit. Thus: even with buying a memory unit a Core unit can create the character.

You try to search reasons for downplaying, which aren't there actually. Seems Sony fangirls are getting pretty nervous over 360 games beating the PS3 games library

+ graphics and beautiful animations + free run (basicly you can climb everywhere in the city) + Crowd

- REPEATABLE GAMEPLAY - Dumb A.I (there are 6-10 soldiers around you and all of them can be killed with same action - counterstrike - while you just wait the enemy to strike and at the same time press RT+x)

My verdict: 7.5-8.0 at most.

on the other hand if u own 360 give the 60$ to mass effect which deserves much better scores even if it's completely different type of game.

It's a shame that game journalists are not able to share their honest opinions of the game:

""These big open worlds, which are fully interactive, do come at a severe cost on PS3. There is considerable texture pop-in and noticeable framerate issues. Playing back-to-back with the 360 version, it's obvious that Ubisoft did not devote enough resources to the PS3 edition. The framerate is considerably worse, so much so that it begins to affect gameplay in the later levels. You can get through the first two-thirds of Assassin with the framerate being just an annoyance, but it becomes more of an issue for the final third of the missions.""

Is a statement they should have stuck to because it's true. They shouldn't have compromised to appease the fanboys.

EVERYTHING got $ h i t scores, while other places gave much more to other games. But then, they came out with Uncharted saying something like "it's the most fun I've had with videogame all year", yet rate it a 9.1 compared to 9.5 halo.